VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- VCD (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- The Girl Next Door *FS* *SVCD* - DVD SCR - SCREAM (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=42423)

*psst, FS sucks*

especially for a dvd screener? odd.

anyways, not bad for a FS. i really enjoyed the movie.

well, i dont give ratings as i think they are stupid, so ill just say i the release aint bad for a FS.

__________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by pHo
ok, well in future when you join a community that is very anti-sellers, you really should choose a username that isn't going to cause confusion and annoyance. its like joinin an arabic forum with the name BUSHRULES because you like the australian outback.

---

Yes, FS does suck. This is a good dvdscr though, crisp, clear sound..picture is* a tad blurry and i don't know if it's just me, but i noticed a purple line at the bottom of the sample at times..movie rocks

7/9/10

quality is not great but its good
and as mentioned above fullscreen is gay
the movie isnt great either but the girl looks good
8/9/6

__________________

well it's better than the previously released cam....elisha cuthbert is fucking hot.

A good release. Picture is good except for a few flickers and the annoying purple line at the bottom of the screen. Audio is nice as well. The only reason I liked this movie, is because Elisha Cuthbert (don't say you have never watched a movie just to see an actor/actress ) is in it. A teen movie IMO. Overall nicely done.

Audio 8
Video 7 b/c it is fullscreen and purple line at the bottom
Movie 7

FS isn't so bad. I have seen worse, but this could have been better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hoozdapimp
well it's better than the previously released cam....elisha cuthbert is fucking hot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bakkoda
Yeah with her makeup ON

---

__________________

post was erased

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bakkoda
Yeah with her makeup ON. Ive seen her with it off on some candid interview. Yikes.

FS sucks almost as bad as the movie. 7/8/2

---

quote:

---

Yes, FS does suck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
No, what sucks is the amount of morans in here.
It is unmatted!! It will show more picture than any WS version of this movie. Tho too bad this DVDScr has watermarks, duh, everyone of u idiots failed to mantion that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
No, what sucks is the amount of morans in here.
It is unmatted!! It will show more picture than any WS version of this movie.

---

__________________


Scrobble all you want, we'll make more!

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
No, what sucks is the amount of morans in here.
It is unmatted!! It will show more picture than any WS version of this movie. Tho too bad this DVDScr has watermarks, duh, everyone of u idiots failed to mantion that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by vip3r
HAHAHAHA! This is a classic.

---

I agree that the FS sucks, but the transfer is very nice, and the sound as beautiful.

I wanted to see this in the theater but it was in and out around here, barely a weekend, which is a shame since it is one of the most entertaining flicks I've seen in awhile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
No, what sucks is the amount of morans in here.
It is unmatted!! It will show more picture than any WS version of this movie. Tho too bad this DVDScr has watermarks, duh, everyone of u idiots failed to mantion that.

---

__________________

" Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
No, what sucks is the amount of morans in here.
It is unmatted!! It will show more picture than any WS version of this movie. Tho too bad this DVDScr has watermarks, duh, everyone of u idiots failed to mantion that.

---

__________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by pHo
ok, well in future when you join a community that is very anti-sellers, you really should choose a username that isn't going to cause confusion and annoyance. its like joinin an arabic forum with the name BUSHRULES because you like the australian outback.

---

pretty good for full screen ..thx scream...waiting on a retail dvdr..

8/8/9 movie was good.

__________________
Reality Is Only A State Of Mind...

Nice pic overall, I for myself don't mind FS after all. Audio is crisp and clean as one can expect from a DVD-screener. Movie wasn't that bad, actually it was rather decent.

8/9/7

__________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by osdia
But its not the director's intention to see it that way, and you miss some image from the sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Muzak
im guessing you wont be posting much after that idiotic post, lmao. unmatted, awesome...

---

*kinderGARDEN*? lol .....your probably not going to win a argument on intelligence...."dumass" was pretty funny as well = p

though valid point on the watermark , im surprised no else mentioned it..the movie was excellent in my opinion ..better then most of those teen-comedy styled flicks : )

And he continues to post!

Please keep 'em coming, crAzym0f0 ... I haven't had this much fun since the last time Dwaggy fisted me!

__________________


Scrobble all you want, we'll make more!

quote:

---

Originally posted by horizonstar
I haven't had this much fun since the last time Dwaggy fisted me!

---

post was erased

Is this a screener of the rated or unrated version? anyone know?

thx

erm.... i'm struggling to see why you're all hacking chunks out of crazymofo. He's the only one that knows what he's talking about!

I haven't seen this rls, but maybe it was filmed open frame and matted later. With some films, you can just tell.

I'm really hoping people on this board know the difference between Pan-scan and open frame, and even more than that, i'd hoped that everyone here would at least check before bitching at someone.

Play nice children. Really. There are bigger things in life to get this arsey about.

FS vs Pan & Scan

Just to clarify what crAzym0f0 was trying to say:

He was claiming that this is showing the full frame of the film, unmatted. Now, I haven't seen this copy, but if indeed the source is a DVDscr, then this would be impossible since the people who made the DVDscr probably used a PAN & SCAN version of the movie.

He is partially right about the whole "full frame" idea, though. All movies filmed at 1.85:1 aspect ratio on standard 35mm film with spherical lenses ARE actually matted when shown in the theater, meaning that there's extra visible stuff on the top and bottom of the frame, as crAzym0f0 claims.

Yes, you'd be able to see the full frame when projected if you took off the matte, BUT you're NOT MEANT to see this extra space on the top and bottom because the filmmakers have framed the movie for this matted, 1.85:1 aspect ratio. In fact, a lot of times, you'll see the boom mic in this top area... 'cause they usually want the boom to get as close as they can to the actors. You'd usually see too much head space, which would mess up the intended composition.

Either way, FULL SCREEN or PAN & SCAN is NOT how you were meant to see a 1.85:1 film.

Hope that makes sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ModernAnimism
*kinderGARDEN*? lol .....your probably not going to win a argument on intelligence...."dumass" was pretty funny as well = p

---

Re: FS vs Pan & Scan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sh3rw1n
Just to clarify what crAzym0f0 was trying to say:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sh3rw1n
if indeed the source is a DVDscr, then this would be impossible since the people who made the DVDscr probably used a PAN & SCAN version of the movie.

Yes, you'd be able to see the full frame when projected if you took off the matte, BUT you're NOT MEANT to see this extra space on the top and bottom because the filmmakers have framed the movie for this matted, 1.85:1 aspect ratio. In fact, a lot of times, you'll see the boom mic in this top area...

---

That cam release is severely cropped from the up and bottom, and a little from the sides.

I think you can make a better comparison with the trailer, which you can download from here:

http://www.thegirlnextdoormovie.com

WIcked Rls

This was execlent rls and movie the sound was great little bar flicker bottom.. who cares. No black and white shit which was good... this rls to me is a 10

Re: Re: FS vs Pan & Scan

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
Thanks, it was pretty useless since u reversed almost every point!
It was not filmed at 1.85, but at ~1.33, then matted to 1.85 for theater.


where the fuck do u pull this bullcrap, nonsense from? and these days when filmed at full frame, directors are careful enough not to have boom mics in the frame, learn that!

I was hopeing someone here would have at least half of brain to post the obvious, obviosly thats not the case, so I'll do it;

---

I hoped crazymofo was right cos it would have been funny. But as shown below... incorrecto esay

I made up a comparison -

http://home.iprimus.com.au/griffins...rcomparison.jpg

But then on other shots it seems crazy mofo is right...

.http://home.iprimus.com.au/griffins...comparisonb.jpg

i'm not sure if it's a mixture of unmatted and pan/scan or what, it doesn't seem like an open/shut either way... an awful lot of shots look unmatted, but then there seems to be more to it than that. and of course you probably shouldn't trust a trailer as gospel. so the only answer must be....

crazymofo is wrong

quote:

---

It is matted for theater, since WS fits better theatrically and no u don't loose the sides, but u do gain top and bottom, but u would know that if u actualy checked.

---

But you can see that you do lose some image from the sides, yeah its minimal, Sh3rw1n is giving the right information.

FS

I was wonderinf why everyone hates FS. I personally hate WS I hate seeing heads chopped off half body shots and special effects flip off the screen they say you get the whole picture with WS and I think it's BS. But then again just my two cents...

Haha this is funny....

Look at Martin Q. Blank's post more carefully....

You will notice that everyone has been right. On the WS trailer you DO get extra bits on the side (this was the first thing I noticed) but then I looked more closely and also noticed on this FS release you DO get extra bits at the TOP and BOTTOM.... It appears everone is correct.

This shows maybe it is recorded in something else. Those pictures prove its not filmed in 1.85:1 or 4:3 or whatever anyone without cropping. I'm reckoning its recorded in 4:3 than cropped or whatever... but then that would kinda be wierd for the cinema, so maybe its 1.85... lets face it, none of us know

Anyway more importantly this is not an action movie so IT DOESN'T MATTER, SO ALL YOU FS WHINNERS.... SHHHH!!

sh3rwin is correct, and is making his point well. crazymofo nearly has a point, but is posting so badly its hard to tell at times.

at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what its filmed in, this movie was filmed with guideframes for 1.85:1 and thats the AR that its supposed to be watched in. at least with open matte films the FS version doesn't chop stuff off, but the extra stuff on screen is nothing to get excited about. its not supposed to be there.

and yes, boom mics crop up all the time in unmatted movies, and almost all CG is rendered in the final AR even if its open matte anyway.

quote:

---

I was wonderinf why everyone hates FS. I personally hate WS I hate seeing heads chopped off half body shots and special effects flip off the screen they say you get the whole picture with WS and I think it's BS. But then again just my two cents...

---

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

quote:

---

Originally posted by pHo
at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what its filmed in, this movie was filmed with guideframes for 1.85:1 and thats the AR that its supposed to be watched in. at least with open matte films the FS version doesn't chop stuff off

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pHo
and yes, boom mics crop up all the time in unmatted movies, and almost all CG is rendered in the final AR even if its open matte anyway.

---

Man, this is a tough choice. Widescreen vs boob scene!

Fellas? Help me out here

hehe yeah mate I wonder what most of us will pick

Video - Video aint bad now, could be a lot worse and the purple at the bottom

Audio - Dunno if its just me, but the audio sometimes seems a little "tin" like, hard to describe

Movie - Love the movie, E. Cuthbert is bl00dy amazing!

8/7/9

__________________
Hullo Hullo, We Are The Rangers Boys!

NICE FS DVDSCR

occasional black and white.... much better than cam i had LOL


great rls but i'll get the WS always thanx but no thanx enjoy...



8/8.5/9

was nice rls i wish it had been in widescreen but any way pic was nice and sound was very good. 8/8/7

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
and at the end of the day you are a fucking bullshiter! Just yesturday u were taking a dump on *FS* in Shrek 2 *FS* - DVDRIP - Centropy topic, just like the idiots on the first page of this topic. While Shrek 2 *FS* is framed very much like The Girl Next Door *FS*.

---

quote:

---

(re me claiming CG is rendered in the final AR) ohh STFU! Every time some asshole mentions this urban legend, they never seem to have any good, worth mentioning examples of this BS. duh, I wonder why?

---

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

quote:

---

Originally posted by pHo
how fucking stupid are you? do you have ANY idea about ANYTHING? are you related to zangano cos you appear to be about as monumentally thick as he is...

yes, i was taking a dump on the FS print of shrek. and i took a dump on this too. if you honeslty don't know the difference between filming in fullframe with 1.85:1 guidelines and a P&S FS print then i'm not going to bother explaining it to you. did i watch either the FS print of shrek or girl next door? no. i grabbed the WS prints. why? because FS prints are shit. the fact it might've been filmed open matte doesnt change that fact, i want to see what i'm SUPPOSED to see, not less than (with a standard ws>p&s fs conversion) or more than (with an open matte fs print). i want to see what the director wants me to see.. are you capable of understanding that very easy fact?



ok, how about Blade 2? there you go. there's your example. you can even check up on it, as the centropy print was open matte and all the CG sequences were in 1.85:1

happy now you fucking moron?

---

numbnuts does have a point... the fight continues...

I do have to say... If you compare the releases FS and WS in this case (might not be all) then you do notice that both versions have extras... FS has more at the top/bottom but less at the sides than WS, and WS has less at top/bottom but more on the sides.

This does work though... if you think about it, it says it was recorded in 1.83:1 on imdb (reliable source), this just means both WS and FS are cropped in different ways.

But anyway as pHo says, the director does want you to see it in WS... so thats the way to go.

Hey, in response to all this FS/WS flaming; just get the version you want and enjoy it, instead of dumping over each other how good one aspect ratio is compared to the other...

GROW UP. There's more important things to argue about than aspect ratios'...

-M

quote:

---

Originally posted by crAzym0f0
Your two fathers are fucking morons, ask them.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for reinforcing that u are shitting all over *FS* before even checking if it is P&S or not, just like the assholes on first page of this topic. While you are at it, might as well start makeing-up other bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Ohh wait, u did; Blade 2 by Centropy is a TS and no FS dvd print of Blade 2 exists u dum bullshitting fuck. Whats next, u gona give me some other workprint as an example?

---

quote:

---

yeah, lets all shit over stuff we don't even check, shit over it just cause dumass pHo thinks thats the way it; "SUPPOSED". [/B]

---

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

hey Mr pistoffHomo, instead of breaking-up quotes like a faget and fliping over something u can't prove, DUH!! obviosly give example of a retail, unmatted print, with those bullshit flaws of yours, otherwise stick that example up your ass! WTF u giving some shit quality, workprint, that ain't and never will be available to the public on vhs and/or dvd, as FS Blade 2 is matted from WS, get that through your empty fucking head of yours. and I don't give a flying fuck if u have a hard-on for theatrical ar or so called "OAR"! Don't bullshit others as if something is pan scanned to hell, when u didn't even bother to check, learn that!

Outside of a few watermarks the quality is okay for a DVD screener. No black and whites that I can remember.

7/9/8

__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you work for UPS? I thougt I saw you checking out my package.